Balanced Annihilation V6.5 - Page 9

Balanced Annihilation V6.5

All game release threads should be posted here

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
thelawenforcer
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 18:00

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by thelawenforcer »

bomber spam is hardly a super late game strat...
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by el_matarife »

Am I crazy or can the Instigator not hit Dragon's Teeth when firing directly on them? We really need to be able to manually target corpses, which I think is an engine issue.
User avatar
Pressure Line
Posts: 2283
Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by Pressure Line »

el_matarife wrote:Am I crazy or can the Instigator not hit Dragon's Teeth when firing directly on them? We really need to be able to manually target corpses, which I think is an engine issue.
flash/gator weapons dont do damage to DT anyway ;) use stumpy/raider
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by el_matarife »

Pressure Line wrote:flash/gator weapons dont do damage to DT anyway ;) use stumpy/raider
That's all kind of irritating. Is that a bug or intended behavior? Ideally, every weapon in the game besides EMP or Juno should be able to take out walls and teeth.
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by ginekolog »

When gunships like bladewing and crow are set to fly and moved to some place, they start to drift around at random. Mod bug or engine?
User avatar
Pressure Line
Posts: 2283
Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by Pressure Line »

bit of both. theres a tag 'airhoverfactor' that if set to 0 means the unit will hover in place, but afaik it *always* affects it, so the krow/bladewings (from this example) would never land and would always be hovering at their cruisealt above the ground

[disclaimer: i may be wrong!]
User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by MR.D »

Did Noize finally give up on BA?
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by ginekolog »

3 more suggestions:

-core silencer is very inferior to arm nuke, as core has 180s reload time vs 120 ARMS. Also core nuke is 50% more expensive to make, but it has some more AOE. I would sugest to lower reload time from 180 to sth more usefull, like 120?

-catapult might be single worst unit in game. u get crap unit for 5,5k cost and 120k buildtime. I would tweak cost and BT + make missiles more accurate and usefull. Its lovely unit so its too bad it has no uses.

- why do T3 mechs have Mass = 200000 ? So they are not transportable? If yes, i agree for krog, jugg and bantha but others would be nice to be transportable by T2 trans. (or it might be op tbh) Atleast marauder and shiva should be transportable imo.. they are not expensive.
User avatar
ginekolog
Posts: 837
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 13:49

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by ginekolog »

MR.D wrote:Did Noize finally give up on BA?
I am preety sure he didnt, we still talk from time to time about BA balance. After all, BA is preety stable and constant changes are not needed anymore.
Masure
Posts: 581
Joined: 30 Jan 2007, 15:23

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by Masure »

ginekolog wrote:
MR.D wrote:Did Noize finally give up on BA?
I am preety sure he didnt, we still talk from time to time about BA balance. After all, BA is preety stable and constant changes are not needed anymore.
Right.

Noize is also waiting for all the TA units to be remodelled to use it and maybe give us a BA Final :)
User avatar
Otherside
Posts: 2296
Joined: 21 Feb 2006, 14:09

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by Otherside »

Masure wrote:
ginekolog wrote:
MR.D wrote:Did Noize finally give up on BA?
I am preety sure he didnt, we still talk from time to time about BA balance. After all, BA is preety stable and constant changes are not needed anymore.
Right.

Noize is also waiting for all the TA units to be remodelled to use it and maybe give us a BA Final :)
the possibility of that happening is unlikely especially if u only accept things that are carbon copies with more poly's and better textures
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by el_matarife »

Performance Suggestion:
This thread: viewtopic.php?p=319949#p319949 has indicated that reducing the LOSMipLevel would make a big difference in performance.

I talked to Lurker and he suggested LosMipLevel=3 AirLosMipLevel=4 instead of our current setting of 1 and 2. He suggests it will make a large performance difference, but you may want to test to see if you can turn them down further with no visual impact. The lower the level, the better the performance will be, especially for air units since I know patrolling fighters are one of the biggest causes of CPU lag.
User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by NOiZE »

That performance thingie looks like win, im gonna look into that.

Also are their still widgets/gadgets broken in BA?
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by TheFatController »

Its worked wonders in BA Chicken defense

Use this file: http://pw3n.net/widgets/sensors.tdf as it wont work if it's enclosed by [sensors] {}.

Also can you remove 'FORT' from 'category' on madsam.fbi, its not used in any other units and I guess it's left over from when the unit was imported it caused 'too many category' errors with chicken so probably worth mopping up for future mutators.

It would also be worth imo going through some of BA's weapons and seeing if their behaviour could be improved with the 'proximitypriority' tag as none of them currently use this, it would be good for high traj cannons and flamers etc.
Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by Saktoth »

Recluses dont hit their max range. Probably needs a manual flightTime tag.
User avatar
hawk900
Posts: 4
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 22:06

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by hawk900 »

Core dragons teeth, stats claim that they have 50 life. The Arm equivalent have 2500 life. I'm going to *assume* that this is just a typo, but I don't really know. I would test it more thoroughly, but I'm afs right now (away from spring).

Beside from that it's looking good. I would recommend nerfing Arm Lightning Tank things, but again, that may just be me.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by el_matarife »

hawk900 wrote:Core dragons teeth, stats claim that they have 50 life. The Arm equivalent have 2500 life. I'm going to *assume* that this is just a typo, but I don't really know. I would test it more thoroughly, but I'm afs right now (away from spring).
Look at the corpse values, that's the true HP of them as far as I know.
User avatar
MR.D
Posts: 1527
Joined: 06 Aug 2005, 13:15

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by MR.D »

Floating dragon's teeth still need their E construction value reduced to normal dragon's teeth levels..

They're way too expensive on E costs for what they do.
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by lurker »

Why have any E cost at all?
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Re: Balanced Annihilation V6.5

Post by el_matarife »

Worth noting that Shark's Teeth are more like Fort Walls than Dragon's Teeth, since they have 15000 HP and cost about the same. Unfortunately, unlike Fort Walls they get bulldozed by battleships and not just Flaghships. (The big T2 units on land roll over Teeth but not Walls, you need T3 for that.)
Locked

Return to “Game Releases”